Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.61 seconds)

Barihdra Kumar Ghose And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 November, 1909

101. Then there is the case of Queen-Empress v. Meher Ali Mullick 15 C. 589, on which special reliance has been placed by the defence. In that instance three persons, Meher, Bhutto and Torab, were accused of having murdered one Hurree, the theory for the prosecution being that the deceased had been strangled as the outcome of a dispute over a bill presented by him to Meher. The statements to the police, which were objected to as inadmissible, were statements made by Torab. "Hurree," Torab was said to have told the police, "came here yesterday at 1 P. M. Hurree and I and Bhutto and Meher Ali were seated in this room looking over his (Hurree's) account, when Hurree took sick with cholera; he went out three times to ease himself and came back and sat down, when angry words passed between him and Meher Ali." He appears also to have gone on to describe how Meher Ali pushed Hurree in the throat" and made him insensible, and how the corpse was afterwards removed in a box. Mr. Justice Wilson, having--so the report runs taken time till the following morning to consider the question, stated that he had come to the conclusion that evidence of these statements could not be given, but his Lordship gave no reasons, nor did he attempt to lay down any rule or enunciate any principle.
Calcutta High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Barindra Kumar Ghose And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 November, 1909

112. Then there is the case of Queen-Empress v. Meher Ali Mullick (1888) I.L.R. 15 Cal. 589, on which special reliance has been placed by the defence. In that instance three persons, Meher, Bhutto and Torab, were accused of having murdered one Hurree, the theory for the prosecution being that the deceased had been strangled as the outcome of a dispute over a bill presented by him to Meher. The statements to the police, which were objected to as inadmissible, were statements made by Torab. "Hurree," Torab was said to have told the police, "came here yesterday at 1 P.M. Hurree and I and Bhutto and Meher Ali were seated in this room looking over his (Hurree's) account, when Hurree took sick with cholera he went out three times to case himself and came back and sat down, when angry words passed between him and Meher Ali." He appears also to have gone on to describe how Meher Ali "pushed Hurree in the throat" and made him insensible, and how the corpse was afterwards removed in a box. Mr. Justice Wilson, having--so the report runs--taken time till the following morning to consider the question, stated that he had come to the conclusion that evidence of these statements could not be given, but his Lordship gave no reasons, nor did he attempt to lay down any rule or enunciate any principle.
Calcutta High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Sahib Singh vs State Of Haryana on 28 July, 1997

This definition was adopted by various High Courts here. (See: Queen Empress vs. Bapu Lal, ILR 6 Allahabad 509 9539); Queen Empress vs. Nana ILR 14 Bombay 260 (263); Queen Empress vs. Meher Ali Mullick & Ors. ILR 15 Calcutta 589; Emperor vs. Cunna 22 Bombay Law Reporter 1247; Imperatrix vs. Pandharinath ILR 6 Bombay Law Reporter 1247; Imperatrix vs. Pandharinath ILR 6 Bombay 34; Muthukumaraswami Pillai & Ors. v. King Emperor ILR 35 MADRAS 397).
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 103 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1